On Mimicry, Signs and Other Meaning-Making Acts. Further Studies in Iconicity
- PDF / 618,125 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 6 Downloads / 186 Views
On Mimicry, Signs and Other Meaning-Making Acts. Further Studies in Iconicity Göran Sonesson 1 Received: 13 January 2018 / Accepted: 8 November 2018 / Published online: 21 December 2018 # The Author(s) 2018
Abstract In an earlier paper, I set out to apply to animal mimicry the definition of the sign, and, more specifically, of the iconic sign, which I originally elaborated in the study of pictures, and which was then extended by myself and others to language, gesture, and music. The present contribution, however, while summarizing some of the results of those earlier studies, is dedicated to the demonstration that animal mimicry, as well as phenomena of the human Lifeworld comparable to it, are in a sense the opposite of signs. It has often been observed, not only within speech act philosophy, but also by the semiotician Luis Prieto, that as sign can only function as such once it is recognized to be a sign. Animal mimicry, camouflage, and the like, in contrast, only work as such, to the extent that they are not perceived as signs. Unlike what speech act philosophy claims, nevertheless, the Bdifference which makes a difference^ is not the recognition of a purpose attributed to the subject producing the sign. A footprint, for example, has to be recognized as a sign in order to function as such. Nevertheless, to the extent that a purpose is attributed to the subject setting the sign, it may be considered a sign, but one that hides its nature, a fake footprint. Mimicry and camouflage, however, are similar to such Bnatural meanings^ as footprints in entertaining a different relation to the agent initiating the act and the agent perceiving it. Classical studies of mimicry distinguish its varieties according to what is rather vaguely called function. In this paper, we will investigate whether these classifications can be recuperated from a semiotic point of view, or whether a semiotically valid classification should start from scratch. Keywords Iconicity . Ground . Sign . Sign about sign . BFake news^ . Attention . Stream of consciousness
The momentous struggle over iconicity was fought out in the field of pictorial semiotics in the middle of the last century, with only sparse references to other kinds of iconic
* Göran Sonesson [email protected]
1
Division of Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
100
Sonesson G.
phenomena. The most ferocious critics of iconic motivation were Umberto Eco within semiotics and Nelson Goodman within philosophy. This combat is long over: the state of the art was summarized, and the decisive arguments formulated, by Sonesson (1989; see also Sonesson 2016a). But if the domain of sign has thus been made safe for iconicity, an important, but rather neglected, task remains to be accomplished in the study of iconic signs: to spell out, for each kind of iconic phenomenon, Bthe difference which makes a difference^ (to use an expression which I have always attributed to Bergmann 1960, but which others credit to Bateson 1972). In this paper, I will argue that phenomena s
Data Loading...
